Do consumers really want a car that monitors their health data, or simply one that provides safe, reliable and cost-efficient transportation?

Ford is testing an idea that would allow drivers of its F-150 trucks to monitor blood sugar levels and even transmit that data wirelessly to family members so they’ll know if there is risk of a diabetic attack.  The company is also developing seats that track heartbeat and monitor stress levels. Perhaps this data could trigger a mechanism that switches the car stereo to a more soothing type of music.  Or they could have prerecorded psychiatric therapy sessions that would promote positive affirmation on the way to and from work, while also reducing incidents of road rage. It could even save marriages.

Other automotive manufacturers, like Toyota and BMW, are spending hundreds of millions in developing on-board wireless and smartphone apps that link loyal customers via social media, creating a community of brand enthusiasts who have nothing more in common than owning the same type of vehicle.

Mobile apps would alert drivers on Twitter when gas or battery levels are running low, or transmit GPS data so parents will know where their kids are when driving the family car.

Wiki-type owner’s manuals would allow drivers to interact, with shared experiences and tips for improved maintenance and trouble-shooting, which would in turn be linked to the manufacturer and the local dealership.

The possibilities are endless as technology and digital media continue to invade every aspect of our lives, with functionality extending well beyond what we thought we needed.  What remains to be seen is whether consumers will pay for, or even want, this functionality and social connectivity.  Maybe we simply want cars with better quality, safety and affordability. After all, isn’t getting us from Point A to Point B enough?

Henry Ford would truly be astounded.

More than ever before brands are built on trust, not image. Trust is an emotional state, founded not just on the products but on the integrity of companies that produce them, and the CEOs who lead them. In a consumer-driven marketplace, where public trust has been rocked by numerous incidents of corporate greed and situational ethics in a brutal economic recession, even seemingly invincible brands have become volatile.

Such is the case with Toyota, the crown jewel of automotive brands and the standard of quality for so many years, as it deals with repercussions from safety issues relating to reports of involuntary acceleration and now problems with braking systems.  President Akio Toyoda, grandson of the founding father, appears today before the US House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to answer questions about how responsive and forthcoming the company has been in dealing with these issues. It should be interesting to see how the consumer public responds and what kind of damage is done to the brand in this, one of Toyota’s largest and most important markets.

The thing that makes this case more interesting than past public relations crises, like Tylenol and Firestone Tires, is the cultural factor. It has to be excruciating for them. Japanese companies are extremely product-centric, often to the point of arrogance. Once trust in those products has been compromised, it comes down to how well the company can engage with the consumer public and restore faith. In companies where the CEO serves as more a figurehead than a true business leader this becomes exponentially more difficult, especially for Mr. Toyoda who is known to be reclusive by nature. This may well be the most daunting challenge of his career.

Could it be that a changing world has caught up to Toyota, which has failed to adapt to a contracted, customer-centric market environment and lost its competitive dominance? There are a couple of US auto manufacturers who are looking on with great interest; let’s hope they’re learning something.

The case in point is a woman named Tammie Townsend who leased a 2007 Chrysler Pacifica from Walser Chrysler in Hopkins, MN, then agreed to purchase the vehicle when the dealer offered a very attractive buyout price, well below blue book value. She opted to finance through the dealer and signed the contract, driving off with a pretty good deal. Or was it a steal?

Soon after, she received a call from Walser informing her they had a made a mistake, that the price on the purchase agreement was not the actual price for the vehicle, and she would have to pony up another six grand or return it. Tammie told them she had no intention of doing either as she had purchased the car at the price offered and “a deal is a deal.”

According to Doug Sprinthall, director of vehicle operations at Walser, the woman was told what the buyout price was and she should have known the price stated on the contract was “too good to be true.” He threatened to sue her if she didn’t return the car. There’s a reason we don’t put operations people in charge of customer relationship management.

Here’s where Walser really blew it: rather than try to negotiate a quiet resolution to this problem of their own making, they took a hard-line confrontational position, pulling her financing and sending a couple of repo guys to take the vehicle back. When they couldn’t locate it the dealership filed suit, they accused Tammie of fraud and unjust enrichment. What, they didn’t think the media was going to jump all over this juicy story?

The Minneapolis Star Tribune ran a prominent article, putting it online where it quickly circulated and creating plenty of buzz, most of which was sympathetic to her — it’s not often we see the female buyer getting the best of the used car salesman. The car dealer ends up looking like the big bad villain and Tammie the victim. Just wait, the publicity is only going to intensify if and when this thing goes to court. Not real smart, guys.

I guess nobody clued Walser Chrysler in on the fact that the world has changed, and in a contracted post-recessionary economy where the customer rules, it doesn’t really matter who was right or wrong. Companies simply don’t want to be threatening and bullying their customers no matter what the circumstances, especially not car dealerships which don’t rank very high on the trust-o-meter to begin with.

“It’s the Walser way,” the tagline on their website proclaims. One would think the potential damage to the brand, one of the largest automotive groups in Minnesota with 13 dealerships, would outweigh the financial gain in this case. By the time this is all over, paying a few thousand dollars to keep this story out of the media will look like a bargain.

Consumer behavior has changed and will not be the same, even as the economy recovers—something business will have to adapt to as it vies for a piece of the smaller pie. It’s analogous to the consumer correction that occurred in the post-depression generation, which brought a renewed respect for the value of a dollar, for saving money, paying off the car and driving it into the ground. An aging Boomer generation, most of which has been living well over an extended period of prosperity with easy credit to buy things we really couldn’t afford — like big homes and a new car every three years — is now faced with the realities of post-recession contraction, a reduced labor force, depleted 401k plans, devalued real estate holdings and too much debt.

This contraction in spending power within the massive U.S. Boomer population will probably continue over the next 20 years or so as the bulge moves closer to retirement, with more conservative fiscal priorities: less debt and more catch-up savings, fewer extravagancies. Not only will the market be smaller for the BMWs of the world, but product life-cycles will be extended as owners keep their cars longer, with more buyers looking for used car value.

At BMW the strategy appears to be: protect the brand by continuing to focus on style and performance, rather than economies. A great new design is the way to stimulate consumer interest. And who is going to lead BMW into the headwinds of these difficult times?  None other than the vaunted Dutchman, Adrian van Hooydonk.

He’s not a business leader or a marketing guy. He’s the new design chief who will define the look of BMW to come. In 2001 van Hooydonk took the helm at Designworks USA in California where he gained considerable acclaim before being called back to the mother ship to head up the Brand Design Studio under the tutelage of Chris Bangle (credited with the legendary “Bangle Butt”). When he retired earlier this year, van Hooydonk took the driver’s seat.

He says he’s going to build the car of the future, represented by concept models like the Z10 ED (EfficientDynamics fuel saving technologies) which promises 400 horsepower and a fuel savings of up to 15%. Wow. (The Z9 got a combined 15 mpg.). I guess the future does look a lot like the past at BMW. But even in a competitive, contracted marketplace, they’ve got the secret weapon.

“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” van Hooydonk says. “You must decide how many eyes you’re trying to please.”

Pleasing eyes is one thing, Adrian. Getting people to buy is altogether another. This guy better be good.

When asked what business strategy GM is going to employ now that the company has emerged from bankruptcy, Lutz said they’re going to “build cars the consumer public wants to buy.”

Now there’s a novel idea. One has to wonder why they didn’t think of that before.

The 77-year-old Lutz, who was planning to retire at the end of the year but returns to his old title with new focus and responsibilities — overseeing design, marketing and public relations — says he’s a marketing guy at heart. He has an MBA in marketing and studied consumer behavior in college. His stated intent is to turn GM into a consumer-centric company, though he hasn’t said exactly how he intends to do that, other than making cars people want to buy. Maybe he can build a distribution model that allows customers to buy cars they want the way they want.

Now that I’m a part-owner of Government Motors, I’m taking considerably more interest in the company and it certainly is encouraging to see they’re bringing in some new talent with fresh ideas. So I did a little checking and found that Mr. Lutz has been in the automotive business for a long, long time, with a list of impressive success stories on which to build. It makes me feel a lot better about the company’s future. I just hope the guy lives long enough to get the job done

Prior to his first stint as Vice Chairman at GM, Bob was CEO of a company called Exide Technologies, where he reorganized global operations, bringing focus to its core business (car batteries), then bringing the company into bankruptcy two years later.

Before that he was a Division President at Chrysler where he oversaw development of the Plymouth Prowler, which was available in 12 colors — now we’re making some progress. A total of 11,000 were sold over a four-year period before it was pulled out of production.

As a VP at Ford prior to that, he brought the short-lived Mercury Merkor to market.

And, he was a lead investor in the Cunningham C7, the super car that never made it to market.

To his credit, Bob is something of a visionary and certainly not risk averse. And he knows how to blog. So, can this 77-year-old auto executive for a failed company reach out and connect with the hearts and minds of a skeptical consumer public, with a couple of surviving brands, in a highly competitive, contracted market?

It seems like a formidable undertaking, but in the words of Henry Ford, “There are no big problems, just a lot of little problems. And what’s right about America is that although we have a mess of problems, we have the capacity to do something about them.”

Go Bob!